The original case of George Spinner (represented by Housing and Urban Development (HUD)) vs. Reno Housing Authority centered on Mr. Spinner alleging that the Reno Housing Authority had not properly accommodated his handicap and had disallowed a deduction from his expected rent contribution. This specific deduction was a “medical” allowance that allowed Mr. Spinner to eat at a local restaurant for one of his meals per day. Mr. Spinner has a severe case of Tourette’s syndrome, and also has a patch over one eye. Medical professionals have stated that Mr. Spinner cannot safely prepare food over an open flame at home, and clearly an electric stovetop would also be dangerous to Mr. Spinner. It is also impossible for Mr. Spinner to keep his apartment clean and organized, so a cleaning crew cleans his apartment once a day. The key issue was that Mr. Spinner wanted to continue getting an allowance to keep eating at a restaurant one per day in the evening, so he could eat hot meals at night. This had been the arrangement when he lived in Tucson. Mr. Spinner had asked for a review of his expected rent contribution. He believed he was having trouble making ends meet, and he wanted more discretionary funds so he could eat at a restaurant in the evenings. Reno Housing Authority responded by increasing his expected contribution to rent (hence reducing his disposable income), but they offered to have a live-in assistant cook hot meals for him instead. Mr. Spinner didn’t want someone living with him; he preferred the previous arrangement. The court basically said that the Reno Housing Authority had sufficiently accommodated Mr. Spinner’s handicap by offering the live-in assistant to cook his meals, and the court denied Mr. Spinner’s petition. The subsequent case, and the case that been assigned here, is that the Reno Housing Authority (RHA) tried to sue Mr. Spinner and HUD for its attorney and legal costs from their defense of the original petition my HUD on Mr. Spinner’s behalf. The court denied RHA’s petition for said costs. The court ruled that while HUD and Mr. Spinner did indeed lose their suit on the original claim, they also had substantial justification to file the claim. The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) allow original respondents to file suit against the original plaintiff for legal fees and costs if the original plaintiff did not have substantial justification to file the suit in the first place. The EAJA exists to discourage frivolous lawsuits, and helps keeps legal fees down by offering a potential penalty on plaintiffs that don’t have a justifiable reason to file a suit. Other cases cited in the original HUD suit were City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc. (1995). Edmonds v. Oxford House basically forbade the City of Edmonds from prohibiting Oxford House from existing in an area zoned for single-family dwellings. Oxford House is a halfway-house that provides housing and support for recovering alcoholics and other addicts. Drug addiction is considered to be a handicap for the purposes of the FHA, so Oxford House by law is allowed an exception to the zoning laws for the purposes of accommodating the handicapped in their pursuit of fair housing. In otherwords, The City of Edmonds had no legal recourse to force the Oxford House to relocate. Another case cited was HUD vs. Dedham Housing Authority. This case is even more compelling and consistent with Mr. Spinner’s case. HUD sued the Dedham Housing Authority on the behalf on John Cummings, who was a tenant that had severe cardiovascular problems, had experienced two previous heart attacks, and could not walk more than 30 feet without becoming light-headed and “fuzzy”. The case here was that Mr. Cummings could not find a parking spot close to his dwelling, and other parking spaces provided for disabled or handicapped persons were always occupied by the cars of other handicapped persons. Dedham had neglected to provide a parking space for Mr. Cummings so that he could safely travel to his car without becoming light-headed and perhaps suffering a further heart attack. The court ruled for HUD in this case, because Dedham had not sufficiently accommodated Mr. Cummings by providing him a reasonably close parking space. Potentially, there could be a charge of an ethics violation here under NAR. Standard of Practice 1-13 (2.) states that realtors must advise potential clients of the amount of compensation to be paid by the client. Mr. Spinner could perhaps construe this to mean that he had no reason to expect that his expected rent contribution would rise. However, I believe this claim to be false. RHA reasonably accommodated Mr. Spinner for the increase in rent contribution by offering to provide him with a live-in assistant that would cook his meals. This person would reduce the amount that Mr. Spinner would have to pay by eating in a restaurant, and therefore his net contribution may have actually been lessened in comparison to the previous arrangement. The key points here that need to be satisfied are:
1. Did Mr. Spinner have a handicap as defined by law?
2. Did RHA know of Mr. Spinner’s disability?
3. Is accommodation of Mr. Spinner’s disability necessary to provide Mr. Spinner with equal opportunity to use and enjoy his housing with RHA?
4. Did RHA refuse to accommodate Mr. Spinner?
On points 1 and 2, it is clear that Mr. Spinner both had a disability, and that RHA was aware of it. On point 3, it’s clear that Mr. Spinner required some accommodation so he could use and enjoy his dwelling. However, on point 4, RHA did not refuse to accommodate Mr. Spinner. While the RHA’s accommodation was different than his previous accommodation in Tucson, the accommodation that RHA provided by offering the services of a live-in assistant to cook meals was both reasonable and adequate. On the original case, I agree with the court’s finding that RHA did sufficiently accommodate Mr. Spinner and that there was no violation of the FHA. In the subsequent case, I also agree with the courts finding not to force HUD to pay RHA’s attorney and legal fees. HUD case, while not merited in the final analysis, was also not frivolous.